run_macro

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'execute' and 'inspect' without mentioning side effects, document mutation, or the potential risk of running macro code. It is not misleading, but it under-discloses for a tool that executes code.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is short and front-loaded, and the Args list is easy to scan. It loses one point because the action-dependent requirements could be expressed more explicitly without adding meaningful length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and five parameters, the description covers core invocation details and the output schema can handle return values. It is incomplete in differentiating from similar tools and in disclosing side effects, but it provides enough for a straightforward macro call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The Args section adds value beyond the bare schema by listing all five parameters and mapping script, name, and module to specific actions. However, it does not state which parameters become required for each action (e.g., script for 'run', name for 'run_named'/'get_source'), which is critical for correct invocation; with 0% schema coverage, the description should be more explicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening line states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute or inspect HWP macros,' and the action list clarifies the three modes. It does not, however, distinguish macros from the closely named siblings run_script and get_script_source, so it stops short of a full 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides action-to-parameter mappings but no guidance on when to prefer run_macro over run_script or get_script_source, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.